Searing Picture Of The Bungled Twilight Zone Case

July 10, 1988|By Reviewed by Mark Litwak, An entertainment attorney and the author of ``Reel Power: The Struggle for Influence and Success in the New Hollywood.``

Outrageous Conduct

Art, Ego and the Twilight Zone Case

By Stephan Farber and Marc Green

Arbor House, 394 pages, $18.95

The jury may have acquitted director John Landis of criminal misconduct for the deaths of Vic Morrow and two children during the filming of ``Twilight Zone-The Movie,`` but the authors of ``Outrageous Conduct`` surely convict him in the court of public opinion.

The rules of evidence precluded the prosecutor from revealing what in this book appears to be evidence of Landis` reckless character and a history of endangering cast and crew members in his pursuit of ever more outrageous stunts. Had the jury known the full story they might have felt less sympathy for Landis, who is portrayed here as an arrogant and petulant despot pushing crew members to act against their better judgment.

With six cameras rolling on a dark night, Landis had a helicopter hover low above a mock Vietnamese Village as his actors ran underneath dodging explosions. A huge fireball engulfed the aircraft, knocking it out of the sky. Its skids crushed one child and its rotor decapitated Morrow and the other youngster. Both children had been hired illegally and paid under the table in knowing contravention of safety regulations.

No doubt the deaths were a shock to Landis, the 30-year-old wunderkind director of ``Animal House`` and ``The Blues Brothers.`` Having grown up an avid television and movie fan, he became so enthralled with cinematic illusion that he seems to have lost touch with reality and felt himself invincible-forgetting that in the real world crashes permanently maim and kill people.

With great insight ``Outrageous Conduct`` reveals how this terrible tragedy occurred, how those responsible for it attempted to escape blame and how the prosecutors bungled the case. It`s a fascinating account that reads like a good novel.

Vic Morrow is the aging actor desperate to resuscitate his career, Dorcey Wingo is the helicopter pilot eager to break into the movie business. Landis is the 10th-grade dropout and movie brat with a childlike love of spectacular visuals who cares little about a film`s intellectual content. Steven Spielberg, Landis` co-producer, is the high school nerd who conquered Hollywood; now he quickly distances himself from Landis to protect his reputation. Lea D`Agostino is the overzealous prosecutor who never lost a case.

The authors have done their research and recount other instances where they say directors such as Victor Fleming (``The Wizard of Oz``) and Mike Nichols (``Catch 22``) acted recklessly, resulting in injuries or deaths to their collaborators. But these directors were never hauled into criminal court. Perhaps if Landis had risked lives in an effort to create ``art``

instead of bubble-gum movies he might have been judged less harshly. Certainly, if he had acted more contritely after the disaster his co-workers would have been less inclined to testify against him. He refused to meet with production secretary Donna Schuman and her psychiatrist husband, who had recruited the two child victims. After stewing for 10 months without any explanation from Landis, they were approached by prosecutor Gary Kesselman, and Schuman became a critical witness against Landis.

Moreover, if he hadn`t acted so arrogantly before the grand jury-refusing to accept any responsibility for the accident, insisting that the sequence had been carefully planned and repeatedly interrupting the prosecutor-he probably would never have been indicted. In many ways, John Landis brought criminal proceedings upon himself.

The title of this book is also an apt description for the behavior of attorneys on both side of the case. James Neal is shown to be a high-priced and pompous lawyer who disdains contact with his fellow defense attorneys. Harland Braun makes intemperate remarks that seem designed only to garner him publicity. Prosecutor Lea D`Agostino is a belligerent and vicious interrogator who alienates and impeaches her own witnesses when she isn`t in the hallway denigrating the defendants before the news media.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the trial was when the defense put Kesselman, who had been the initial prosecutor, on the stand in an effort to discredit Donna Schuman, the prosecution`s star witness. Kesselman

contradicted Schuman, claiming she never mentioned to him certain incriminating statements allegedly made by Landis and producer George Folsey. (She had tesified that when she asked George Folsey what the penalty was for working the children without permits, he replied, ``A slap on the wrist and a little fine-unless they find out about the explosives, then they`ll throw my butt in jail.`` Schuman also said Landis waved his arms in the air and joked ``We are all going to go to jail.``) Kesselman not only raised doubt about Schuman`s veracity, he also implied D`Agostino pressured him to commit perjury. D`Agostino never recovered from this blow to her credibility.

After reading ``Outrageous Conduct,`` one concludes that Landis and his co-defendants were acquitted not so much because they were innocent but because the prosecution blew the case. It was inexcusable for the D.A.`s office not to charge the defendants with violation of child labor laws, a much lesser offense but one nonetheless for which their guilt was clear. But the prosecutors apparently didn`t want to offer the jurors an easy out-so they forced them into the dilemma of convicting the defendants of manslaughter or letting them escape with impunity. As one juror explained: Landis` acquittal didn`t mean he wasn`t guilty of anything but only that the prosecution hadn`t produced sufficient proof.